Moral Development Theory vs. Operant-Utilitarian Theory of Criminality
Yengcheecha Thao
California State University, Fresno
Criminology 100: Criminology
10 December 2017
Introduction Today, there are many criminological theories that analyze and help provide insight into motivations behind most crimes. Two known theories that describe crimes from a psychological point of view are the Moral Development Theory and the Operant-Utilitarian Theory of Criminality. Both theories have contributed in helping others find the motivation behind certain crimes and how an individual developed their way into committing those crimes. Consequently, one will see and determine whether it is a good idea to merge both theories or keep it the way it is. …show more content…
Stage 1 and 2 which makes up the Pre-conventional level is the “level of morality characteristic of designating what is considered right or wrong” (Schram & Tibbetts, 2017, p.172). Stage 3 and 4 which makes up the Conventional level that “considered the normal adult approach used to maintain the family and social order, such as the principle of the golden rule and appreciating social order” (Schram & Tibbetts, 2017, p.172). Stage 5 and 5 which makes up the last level, Post-conventional, is “when a person attempts to establish a balance between individual rights and societal rules” (Schram & Tibbetts, 2017, …show more content…
Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein; however, through an analysis of their book Crime and Human Nature, the name of the theory was coined by Jack Gibbs since “many of the concepts were associated with operant psychology” (Schram & Tibbetts, 2017, p.180). According to Gibbs himself, the theory was developed “in opposition to sociological theories” at the time (Gibbs, 1985, p. 381). During the 1980s when the theory was developed, it was a time where a political shift occurred to the a “more conservative perspective” (Schram & Tibbetts, 2017, p.177). Due to that, Wilson and Herrnstein believed that conservatives will most likely see causes of crime as an individual effect than a social one (Schram & Tibbetts, 2017,
Yengcheecha Thao
California State University, Fresno
Criminology 100: Criminology
10 December 2017
Introduction Today, there are many criminological theories that analyze and help provide insight into motivations behind most crimes. Two known theories that describe crimes from a psychological point of view are the Moral Development Theory and the Operant-Utilitarian Theory of Criminality. Both theories have contributed in helping others find the motivation behind certain crimes and how an individual developed their way into committing those crimes. Consequently, one will see and determine whether it is a good idea to merge both theories or keep it the way it is. …show more content…
Stage 1 and 2 which makes up the Pre-conventional level is the “level of morality characteristic of designating what is considered right or wrong” (Schram & Tibbetts, 2017, p.172). Stage 3 and 4 which makes up the Conventional level that “considered the normal adult approach used to maintain the family and social order, such as the principle of the golden rule and appreciating social order” (Schram & Tibbetts, 2017, p.172). Stage 5 and 5 which makes up the last level, Post-conventional, is “when a person attempts to establish a balance between individual rights and societal rules” (Schram & Tibbetts, 2017, …show more content…
Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein; however, through an analysis of their book Crime and Human Nature, the name of the theory was coined by Jack Gibbs since “many of the concepts were associated with operant psychology” (Schram & Tibbetts, 2017, p.180). According to Gibbs himself, the theory was developed “in opposition to sociological theories” at the time (Gibbs, 1985, p. 381). During the 1980s when the theory was developed, it was a time where a political shift occurred to the a “more conservative perspective” (Schram & Tibbetts, 2017, p.177). Due to that, Wilson and Herrnstein believed that conservatives will most likely see causes of crime as an individual effect than a social one (Schram & Tibbetts, 2017,